The Planning Board closed the public hearing on June
15, 2000, and immediately approved the plan. The plan was
filed with the city clerk on or about Friday, August 11,
2000. There is a 20 day appeal period following the
fiiling.

The Public Hearing was closed on June 15, 2000, and
the project was immediately passed by the Planning
Board.

The details of the elevations are being worked out
with the Planning Board, Planning Department, and an
independant architect advisor. These final plans will be
shared with the public by the Planning Department prior
to being filed. The developers still need approval from
MEPA (Massachusette Environmental Protection Agency) and
a Chapter 91 license, along with approval fro the
Massachusetts Historical Commission.

Specific Data:

Number of Units: 232± in
central area, additional 48± in secondary site at
northeast.

Type of units: mix of one and
two bedroom - all rental. Unit size 850 fs to 1100 sf,
rent $1.50 per square foot per month

Market: Young singles and
marrieds, empty nesters, anticipated stay - one or two
years.

The developers have decided not to wait for the final
Bridge street configuration to be finalized by the state
(Mass Highways), before bringing the plans to the
Planning Board. The present plans can be developed
independantly of the By-Pass Road.

The proposal is to develop the site under a PUD
(Planned Unit Development) process at the Planning Board.
This provision in the zoning code permits an appropriate
mix of uses to be constructed on a parcel, which
ordinarily would not be permitted under the current
zoning. (The current zoning is industrial, which does not
permit residential or certain types of commercial
use).

The plan consists of a centerpiece of residential
surrounded by some commercial - stores and a hotel were
mentioned. The residential component is proposed to be
200+ rental units, primarily one and two bedrooms. A
piece about an acre and a half in size at the northeast
corner, across the new Bridge Street, is shown as aa ATM
drive-in use. The southwest corner near the existing
railroad tracks is shown as an undefined retial use, with
vehicular access from Bridge Street.

Comments from the public seemed to concentrate on the
issue that while the plan was positive in concept, it
appeared that the development did not take the urban
context into account, and seemed to be a suburban closed
in community type of plan. The importance of maintaining
visual access to the North River was also suggested. It
was recommended that the developer explore ways of
improving the pedestrian connection to the city, and also
explore alternative spatial arrangement of the buildings
to reflect the urban patterns of Salem. Concern was also
expressed that the small parcel at the southwest corner
not be developed for a drug store or similar strip mall
type development.